Islamic militants attempted to storm the U.S. Embassy in Damascus on Tuesday using automatic rifles, hand grenades and at least one van rigged with explosives, the government said. Four people were killed in the brazen attack, including three of the assailants.

No Americans were hurt, and the attackers apparently did not breach the high walls surrounding the embassy's white compound in the city's diplomatic neighborhood.

But one of Syria's anti-terrorism forces was killed and at least 11 others were injured, the country's official news agency reported. The wounded including a police officer, two Iraqis and seven people employed at nearby technical workshop.

A Chinese diplomat also was hit in the face by shrapnel and slightly injured while standing on top of a garage at the Chinese Embassy, China's government news agency said.

A witness said one Syrian guard outside the embassy also was killed, but the government did not immediately confirm that. At the embassy in Damascus, as at most American embassies worldwide, a local guard force patrols outside the compound's walls while U.S. Marine guards are mostly responsible for guarding classified documents and fighting off attackers inside the compound.

Witnesses also said the gunmen tried to throw hand grenades into the embassy compound, shouting "Allah Akbar!" or "God is great!" It was not clear if any of the grenades made it over the walls, which are about 8 feet high.

The attack came at a time of high tension between the United States and Syria over the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war in neighboring Lebanon. In Damascus the sentiment has become increasingly anti- American sentiment.

Syria has seen previous attacks by Islamic militants. In June, Syrian anti-terrorism police fought Islamic militants near the Defense Ministry in a gunbattle that killed five people and wounded four.

After Tuesday's attack, pools of blood lay splattered on the sidewalk outside the embassy, along with a burned car apparently used by the attackers. A sports utility vehicle with U.S. diplomatic tags had a bullet hole through its front window, and the glass windows of nearby guard houses also were shattered.

Syrian officials [said] that the attack started at around 10am (0700GMT), when the four men pulled up in two vehicles outside the embassy in the Rawda area which also houses vital security installations, the houses of senior Syrian officials and other embassies.

Although initial reports were confused it appears that the men lobbed grenades at the building and shot at Syrian sentries, one of whom was reported to have been killed, although that was not confirmed.

During the shootout, two of the men were said to have taken refuge in a nearby building, but were chased down by Syrian security forces. One car bomb exploded but a second was safely defused, officials said. In all, the incident lasted about 20 minutes.

Syrian state television said the attackers had tried but failed to detonate a car bomb.

Television footage of the scene showed a van packed with gas canisters and detonators taped to them, as well as bloodstains on the pavement and several damaged vehicles, including a white bullet-riddled car that a truck was preparing to haul away.

It sounds like the terrorists wanted to kill the Syrian guards outside the embassy and then use the car bombs to blow a hole in the protective wall to get in. If they had succeeded, they would have met the US Marines who are protecting the embassy from the inside. We need to be prepared for other attacks on American interests overseas.

Analysts on Fox News are speculating it may be the Muslim Brotherhood that is behind this attack. Does it really matter, though, which Islamofascist group is behind it? The point is that, again, they will not stop trying to kill us.

The true details of what happened today in Damascus may never emerge. The Asad regime, of course, will look to exploit the security "success" to try and entice US and European engagement. Still, it's important to note that this attack comes just one week after the attempted assassination in Lebanon of Lieutenant Colonel Samir Shehade, deputy chief of the intelligence department in Lebanon's national police force, responsible for the investigation into the killing of former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri. The Syrians have been implicated in the Hariri assassination--and are likely involved in the Shehade business as well.

In terms of context, though, the key point is that if this attack was indeed perpetrated by Islamists, it is the direct result of the double game being played by the Asad regime. The regime supports Sunni and Shiite Islamist militants in Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, and Iraq, and in the past has not acted against terrorists entering Jordan. Syria no longer cooperates with the US on Al Qaida, either. Given the regime's friendly disposition toward terrorists, it would be no surprise if some unauthorized terrorist organizations were setting up shop in Damascus.

It doesn't stop and it never will until they are thoroughly defeated. Our president was absolutely correct in his address last night. I just wish the lunatic fringe could recognize that THEY are in as much danger as the rest of us who understand the threat!

Bush turned a day of mourning into a cheap political event yesterday. Shameful.

Just days after the Republican controlled Senate reported that Saddam and Iraq had no links to Osama and Al Qaeda, Bush uses 9/11, and the nation's focus on it, in an attempt bolster support for his war in Iraq.

A car bomb that did'nt explode? Rantburg has two stories, one of a car bomb exploding at the wrong time and a sucicide belt going off at the wrong time. Have we killed enough of thier top people, that they are losing the expertise to build bombs?

the Senate report is a political document and the summary page the reports are on are different than the overall doc....that said, Clinton's own appointed Judge ruled in the Court of Law that Iraq/Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked

Lee wrote today:What kind of insanity is that, Kim? Of course it matters -- we are a people who do not prosecute indiscriminately. What an absolutely insane thing to say.

Lee wrote on a previous thread:I blame Bush for what is Bush's fault, but the large majority of blame for what has gone wrong in the last 6 years lies with the people who (1) voted for Bush, and (2) lie to defend and apologize for the horrendous job he's done.

I have a solution for the Islamofascists problem.Silence Mecca
You figure it out.They only understand brutality and force.Look whats happening in Abu Grab now that Iraq has taken control. I bet the prisoners wish they could do the naked pyramid again now, instead of what is taking place under Iraqi control.If they start PUBLIC hangings of these fascist they'll soon scare the S--t out of them. I think the religion IS the problem. Silence Mecca, Silence Mohammed.Permanently.

I don't get it. So, when the terrorists blew something up while Clinton was president, we didn't bomb whatever country where it happened back into the stone age and all you patriots called him a coward, etc., etc., etc. Now, after the "terrorists" attack an embassy in Syria, how come none of you are calling for President Bush to stiff-arm his way into Syria--with you marching behind him, of course--and tear that country a new arsehole before they blow up the World Trade Center in NYC or something? Are you sissies, or what, guys? I think you need your mama.

Bloodstomper and Lee are typical brain dead democrats, or maybe they are members of the soon to be really dead Islamofascist faction. Democrat-Islamofascists. They seem to be one and the same and have the same target, destruction of the U.S.. They chose to forget that the once terrorist government of Syria has already conceeded defeat and joined the free world in fighting the Islamofascist. Wasn't there several tons of WMD, including an advanced nuclear program dismantled in Syria and the material is now residing in Oak Ridge Tn., by the way with several tons of (non-existant) partially enriched Uranium from Iraq.
The democratic talking heads are running around on every news show that will allow them on to complain that the Presidents speach used 9-11 for political purposes. DUH, wasn't it 9-11, five years later? They should go watch 'Chuckie' Schumer (D NY)and 'Moran the Moron' (D Va) if they want to see two total a**holes. Moran the Moron made the mistake of mouthing off in public and the only thing he got was booed off the stage and told by those that lost loved ones on 9-11 to shut his trap.

This is almost certainly the action of the Syrian government. A terrorist attack, a very inept one, in the heart of the capital of one of the most dictatorial states on the planet? And, in a very high security neighborhood, full of VIP's?

This has happened in that very same neighborhood at least two other times that I can recall. Curiously, both attacks were on unoccupied buildings.

Witnesses also said the gunmen tried to throw hand grenades into the embassy compound, shouting "Allah Akbar!" or "God is great!" It was not clear if any of the grenades made it over the walls, which are about 8 feet high.

If, while shouting "God is great" you fail at multiple attempts to get a grenade over an 8 foot wall...I think it speaks volumes about how great God thinks you are.

"The democratic talking heads are running around on every news show that will allow them on to complain that the Presidents speach used 9-11 for political purposes. DUH, wasn't it 9-11, five years later?"

Actually - the President used the occassion of 9/11 to pump up his failing war in Iraq - which every thinking American now knows had nothing to do with terrorism, Osama bin Laden, or the attack on the WTC on 9/11.

First of all:In Damascus the sentiment has become increasingly anti-American sentiment.
Nice bit of writing from the department of redundancy department.

RED:Bush turned a day of mourning into a cheap political event yesterday. Shameful.

So, he should have spent more money on the political event?

Just days after the Republican controlled Senate reported that Saddam and Iraq had no links to Osama and Al Qaeda,

Lie. The Republicans may have a majority in the senate, but that did not stop Sen. Rockefeller, a DEMOCRAT, from releasing a completely partisan Democrat report full of similar lies and misrepresentations. Your intentionally misleading wording implies the report was endorsed by the Majority, which of course it was not. Problem for you: It's an easy thing to check, and when people find out you lied about that, they have to ask themselves what else you're lying about.

... Bush uses 9/11, and the nation's focus on it, in an attempt bolster support for his war in Iraq.
Where is the decency in that?

LOL! And if he had NOT mentioned Iraq in his address, you would have been all over him for it! "He didn't mention Iraq! He knows it's a quagmire!" Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The President, on the other hand, stands by his beliefs and forthrightly defends them. That this helps him politically (as you apprently fear it does or you would not be griping) is just a bonus.
----
Bloodstomper:

I don't get it. So, when the terrorists blew something up while Clinton was president, we didn't bomb whatever country where it happened back into the stone age and all you patriots called him a coward, etc., etc., etc. Now, after the "terrorists" attack an embassy in Syria, how come none of you are calling for President Bush to stiff-arm his way into Syria--with you marching behind him, of course--and tear that country a new arsehole before they blow up the World Trade Center in NYC or something? Are you sissies, or what, guys? I think you need your mama.

It's a little difficult to take seriously a taunt like that, since it's clear you don't MEAN what you say! You obviously DON'T want the administration to attack Syria! (And how shocking of you to use a homophobic slur like "sissies", you bigot!)

Here the administration is doing what you would wish, NOT over-reacting, and instead of applauding them for it, you're pretend-egging them on. Can't you see that in attempting to point out hypocrisy of others you're demonstrating your own? Fight back the sarcasm urge once in a while, for your own sake as well as everybody else's.
-----
As for the incident itself, I wonder if the Syrians had a mole inside the terrorist cell, and decided to let them go forward with the attack, so that the government could look good defending the Americans against the awful terrorists. These guys don't seem to have been the most fearsome fighters. They attacked a heavily guarded compound in broad daylight? They couldn't get their grenades over an eight-foot wall?

Actually - the President used the occassion of 9/11 to pump up his failing war in Iraq - which every thinking American now knows had nothing to do with terrorism, Osama bin Laden, or the attack on the WTC on 9/11.

I wonder who is right about Iraq. Lee, who said it has nothing to do with the war on terrorism or Bin Ladin who said it is the place they must defeat America. I suspect Lee and his ilk will dismiss what Bin Ladin has to say, as they know what the terrorists want more than the terrorists do.

I wonder who is correct concerning the war on terror. Lee, who said Iraq has no connection, or Bin Ladin who says we must defeat America in Iraq. Lee and his ilk will dismiss what Bin Ladin has to say, as they know what the terrorists intend better than the terrorist do. Lee should lead the country.

Y'know, a few years back I would have recoiled at such a suggestion. But recent world events (gee, I dunno, beheadings...kidnappings...embassy bombings...Iran...etc.) have made me rethink my attitude. I'll be as clear (and, yes, intolerant) as I can be for the survival of my children and this country: This war is against Islam. We fail to understand this at our own demise. They sure aren't confused, so why should we continue to be?

Time has come to ignore Lee. Or at lest look at him with pity like you would that crazy uncle in the family. Delusion cannot be cured. Delusions are additive. You cannot reason with one delusion because another delusion supports the first. and so on.

I am tired of the narrow phrase "the war in Iraq". That is pigeonholing what we are doing. It's not the war in Iraq. It's the War on Terror which, in part, is being fought in Iraq.

Remember the phrase "It's the economy, stupid?"? Well it's the War on Terror, stupid and it's worldwide.

Gadfly, to win WWII we destroyed Berlin and Tokyo. This, call it what you might, is a holy war. They are holy warriors, at least in the eyes of islam. As long as Mecca, Medina and other Islamic holy sites are allowed to exist, they will claim Allah is on their side. With those places vaporized, they will get the idea that Allah has forsaken them.

1) Who said it wasn't inherently evil? Don't answer, you might accidentally fire a synapse.

2)It may make G a sympathizer of state-sponsored terrorism, but in applying that final chromosome that separates us from apes, you'd make the logical conclusion that a lone poster does not A) represent the rest of those on the site and B) the rest of the site itself.

3)See the answer to number 2, then to number 1, then see about getting that high school equivalency degree.

One or two people commend him on his suggestion and now you ask for the rest of us (wizbangers) to all form a nice queue and sound off so as not to be judged by who...you?

You follow, almost as a (really weak) bluff, that the entire site is in danger of being branded a sympathizer of state-sponsored terrorism because of an errant poster and one or two that agreed with him.

And you finish with another staggeringly ignorant generalization about how G posting his (decidedly off) point of view makes anyone else here who is a conservative, a hypocrite.

Well then, I suppose I could call you a terrorist sympathizer since I'm sure someone on the liberal side is...that is of course unless you answer my three question test.

Your logic is broken.

Oh, I know you must like to throw the various incarnations of the word "moral" around, such as "morally bereft"...but do me a favor and try to use it when it makes sense.

I don't get it. So, when the terrorists blew something up while Clinton was president, we didn't bomb whatever country where it happened back into the stone age and all you patriots called him a coward, etc., etc., etc. Now, after the "terrorists" attack an embassy in Syria, how come none of you are calling for President Bush to stiff-arm his way into Syria--with you marching behind him, of course--and tear that country a new arsehole before they blow up the World Trade Center in NYC or something? Are you sissies, or what, guys? I think you need your mama.

Seeing as you are probably in the UK, would you like us to stormtroop our way to London to take care of that Underground bombing problem for ya? Shall we tear your country a new arsehole?

Sod off stimpy, learn to construct a coherent thought. This is what Comprehensive Education in Britain has brought you. What did you get your A levels in---buffoonery, idiocy and tripe? Bet you got all 1s there. Do they have a sixth-form in stupidity, because you should go all balls-out for it.

1) "G" is advocating state-sponsored terrorism in the "silence mecca" post.
2) If, like "Clay" and "914", you agree with G.
3) How that is NOT inherently evil.
4) ...and hypocritical.

1. Well, he didn't specify how to silence him. Me, I would say "Clear out the city and nuke it". That's pretty specific.

2. Well, it would shut up the Islamfacists for a bit, wouldn't it? They want a war? They'll get the mother of all Wars.

3. And yet divebombing two jet-liners into a couple of towers isn't? Hey, at least I'm willing to give Mecca a little warning...after all, it takes about 15 minutes for a ballistic ICBM to reach apoapsis.

4. When we start going around cutting off people's heads, and using towers of civilians as target practice, and sundry other things for the past 20 some years, then you can throw your "hypocritical" epithet at me.

These guys have used up their chances...unless the other muslims want to step up, strap on some balls and denounce LOUDLY their disenchantment with these fucks, then they are as complicent as the ordinary German citizens during WWII with the extermination of Jews and the various invasions.

It's called destroying a city; it hasn't yet reached a "genocidal level" (unless, of course, we were planning on wiping out ALL Arab Muslims). I believe that the idea behind the suggestion to destroy Mecca was to take out a cultural/religious symbol of a people--sound familiar? Or was it simply an accident that the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and (possibly) the White House or Capitol were the targets on 9/11? Does this make sense?

When we start going around cutting off people's heads, and using towers of civilians as target practice, and sundry other things for the past 20 some years, then you can throw your "hypocritical" epithet at me.

I don't have to wait until then to call your position hypocritical. You're already there.

Gentlemen- please!?
I'm not advocating state sponsored terrorism-I'm advocating WAR that has already been declared on us.I have children too. They want me and mine to die.I say YOU first. I will not be silent. I will not submit. I have not heard ANY in Islam trying to seriously prove they want to really help stop their fellow misguided "brothers". I merely advocating that we first show, We, are no longer a paper tiger, and when this TIGER finally BITES!!- IT BITES WITH FEROCITY AND FINALITY OF PURPOSE!! Our lives and those of our neighbors DEPENDS on it. If you have anything to say, you can say it to me directly. I've been gone for a few hours. Sorry to have missed the-excitement?:-) Have you seen the above post on a possible nuke in this country. Although nothing may come of it -what if it does. What then?Please don't hurt me anymore mister terror man?:-(

Hiro and Nagasaki. No. Not terrorism. Because at that point all Japanese were commanded by the emperor to fight to the death. Therefore, they were combattants.

Whereas the bombing of Mecca and the mass targeting of Muslims (wow, I can't believe I have to actually argue AGAINST this. Many of you really are insane) purely on the basis of their religion -- the rate of innocent vs. combattants killed would be almost entirely flipped vis-a-vis Japan. Very much akin to the terrorists we condemn. Not unlike Hitler. Therefore hypocritical. And genocidal.

Until you emasculated dem-puds can figure out that the islamo-bitches want you, your wives, and your children dead you are in danger of losing it all. It's war on these bastards. That's all they get. And if their muslim brothers don't start policing their own religion, they get to go down with them.

Eh, if you had read carefully, and of course, you didn't, I said I'd give them warning to get out of Mecca first.

Perhaps you could go ahead and dance around the black meteorite and warn them first.

If you really think I care about your judgement, then you have another think coming. I don't. You are a boil on the bum of the blogosphere. Insignificant. Not worthy of actual debate. Just snarking. The only reason I'm bothering here is that I'm waiting around for my girlfriend to show up and I need a few minutes to kill...

Hiro and Nagasaki. No. Not terrorism. Because at that point all Japanese were commanded by the emperor to fight to the death. Therefore, they were combattants.

Hm, doesn't the Koran command all good muslim to partake in jihad against the infidels? Therefore, they are all combatants.

"War is enjoined against the Infidels." II, 215
"Oh True believers, wage war against such of the infidels as are near you." IX, 124
"When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them." XLVII, 4

"Defender of genocide"? (sound of buzzer) Wrong description! If you had said "defender of the U.S." or (more generally) "defender of Western civilization," then yeah. I might agree. But genocide? Nope. Not even close. I just thought that G's suggestion (destroying Mecca) had a certain symmetry to it. Y'know, us having lost nearly 3,000 people when terrorists flattened the WTC and all.

And guess what, gadfly? Because terrorists by definition don't wear uniforms, it's more than a little difficult for us to determine who's a combatant and who isn't. So until the bad guys start playing by the universally accepted rules of engagement, INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL DIE. That's not our fault. It's THEIRS. And that's the way they want it, because they don't give a damn how many innocent people die. In their world, all infidels deserve death.

And finally (do I really have to explain this?), I am not advocating the mass destruction of Muslims purely because of their religion. But if their religion tells me I have to convert or I die, then we've got a problem here. Don't we, gadfly? How would you suggest we "resolve" this "slight misunderstanding"? (sarcasm off)

Your moral equivalence arguments are so very, very tired and inept. If we were truly like these bastards, Mecca (and a few other cities) would not be standing today. Hasn't happened yet, has it? Didn't think so. Oh: and if were we truly like them, then maybe Katie Couric would have been forced to broadcast a beheading last week from the prison at Gitmo during her debut on the CBS Evening News. I didn't happen to see that last week--did you?

Gadfly, do you think we're really in a war today, or is this simply a result of Bush's "insatiable quest for supreme power" (or whatever the hell you think he's up to)? Is there any possibility that he believes what he says--that America is in mortal danger and that he will do everything he can to protect us from further attacks? Or are we all safe and sound?

If everything is OK (and Bush has been overstating this threat), please do us all a favor: Assuming we all survive another attack here at home, please don't come back here and blame Bush for it. Just look in the mirror.

Sorry Doug, that would help my argument that many conservatives embrace a hypocritical and morally unhinged homicidal impulse on the issue of "war on terror". Don't want to throw off my data.

Just to be clear, we're talking about the knowing, intentional, targeting of non-combattants (disproportionately), just like the terrorists do, by the U.S., on a massive scale, targets selected soley because they are Muslim. As implicitly and explicity advocated above by "G" and others.

Putting that good public school education to work? IOW, I didn't ask that question, dummy.

But, you can put me down for 'yes' on that, too. See, if they believe what they read then, yes, they are combatants. And they need to be taken care of. I do advocate a warning though. I'm not that cold-hearted.

1. On the issue of Japan and WWII you said:Hiro and Nagasaki. No. Not terrorism. Because at that point all Japanese were commanded by the emperor to fight to the death. Therefore, they were combattants.

2. On the issue of Muslims and the GWOT you said:Just to be clear, we're talking about the knowing, intentional, targeting of non-combattants (disproportionately), just like the terrorists do, by the U.S., on a massive scale, targets selected soley because they are Muslim. As implicitly and explicity advocated above by "G" and others.

So....

The Japanese were combatants because their Emperor ordered them to fight to the death.

And...

Muslims are not combatants, even though their Holy Book says things like this:"War is enjoined against the Infidels." II, 215
"Oh True believers, wage war against such of the infidels as are near you." IX, 124
"When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them." XLVII, 4 (Thanks for the quotes, James.)

The Japanese were combatants because their Emperor ordered them to fight to the death.

And...

Muslims are not combatants, even though their Holy Book (commands war with infidels).

Absolutely, because in Japan it was universally, legally, binding. And the Japanese had demonstrated they would follow universally (or nearly so).

Whereas the Koranic injunctions you cite are not universally binding, accepted, or followed. And, like many violent Hebrew laws, it is counter-balanced by contrary -- i.e. compassionate -- injunctions. The vast majority of Muslims reject the narrow war-mongering interpretation just as the vast majority of Christians don't love their enemies. (Though I try).

But your persistant defense of those who are advocating genocide -- IF perpetrated by the U.S. -- is duly noted.

Wow, I had the last post on this thread last night when I turned off my computer, Gadfly has been in condemnation overdrive.

You want to know why I so "PASSIONATELY" responded to you and not to G? Because G is entitled to his opinion regardless of whether I agree with it, whereas you tried to make me RESPONSIBLE for his opinion if I didn't answer to YOU.

So I'll say it again, morality has absolutely no bearing in our discussion.

Now, take a pin and deflate your ego my friend, I don't give a shit about your tally and no one has to answer to you. Just saying with a healthy dose of pretension that you condemn someone doesn't magically make you a good person contrary to liberal belief.

To the left and some on the right:
I really do Not want this nation to Have do what I said above. But there seems little other choice .Muslims of the world are just becoming more emboldened to strike us. The topic of this very thread.What should we do? Talk them into peace with us? As I recall the First demands of Osamma,Usamma-bin Ladin was for westerners to leave all muslim nations. Now it's submit to Islam or die. We can not kill just the terrorist with out collateral damage.They want any damage at any cost. If the nations of Islam are not like the terrorist, then why are they not doing more to stop and denouce them? I see their lack of action as agreement with their terrorist Muslim brothers. Don't You? Don't you? Perhaps a warning to all of them to get off their asses and speak up or else, would help. A small reminder of some power in a Islamic desert perhaps. I don't think they'll arise to the occasion without it. Besides more and more of them think they have a chance of WORLD domination. Don't you see it? Some of Europe seem to have already given up.We as a nation are, as I see it, in very grave danger. Osama already has a clerics Fatwa for 10 Million lives.10 MILLION!Want to be one or do you say to THEMYOU first. WE Must Silence this threat or perish. We must silence the threat of the religion of Islam. Hopefully with their help. If not, we must act without it.

I knew there was a point in this discussion where we accepted one of your premises when we should not have. And I think I finally found it (I've taken out a little more context for the sake of brevity--anyone interested in the post I'm referring to should look at the one from 10:45 PM last night):

Heralder's anger and effort against the poster who advocates destroying Mecca and apparently advocates direct military attack on innocent Muslims - DEMONSTRABLY LOW.

What's not morally bereft about that? Please, take your time. Remember, it's often called genocide, if that helps.

That's where we went off-track. You used a highly-charged word ("genocide") to derail this thread. You call it "genocide"; others here might call a scenario like that (the theoretical destruction of Mecca) a very unfortunate development in THIS WAR.

I think most of us here (a) Do NOT advocate wiping Mecca off the map (unless it will end hostilities, as bombing Japan did in WWII), and (b) Do NOT accept your description of that possibility as "genocide."

Therefore, all debate/argument past this point is, frankly, a waste of everyone's time.

Oh, crud. Part of Gadfly's post that I wanted to quote in my last response was not italicized, so now it looks like my response. Let's try this again:
_____________________

Gadfly (if you're still around and reading this thread):

I knew there was a point in this discussion where we accepted one of your premises when we should not have. And I think I finally found it (I've taken out a little more context for the sake of brevity--anyone interested in the post I'm referring to should look at the one from 10:45 PM last night):

Heralder's anger and effort against the poster who advocates destroying Mecca and apparently advocates direct military attack on innocent Muslims - DEMONSTRABLY LOW.

What's not morally bereft about that? Please, take your time. Remember, it's often called genocide, if that helps.

That's where we went off-track. You used a highly-charged word ("genocide") to derail this thread. You call it "genocide"; others here might call a scenario like that (the theoretical destruction of Mecca) a very unfortunate development in THIS WAR.

I think most of us here (a) Do NOT advocate wiping Mecca off the map (unless it will end hostilities, as bombing Japan did in WWII), and (b) Do NOT accept your description of that possibility as "genocide."

Therefore, all debate/argument past this point is, frankly, a waste of everyone's time.

You give him too much credit. He went off track the second he clicked 'post' on his first entry. His reasoning behind trying to paint everyone with one brush and have us answer to him was corrupt from the start, anything he said after that is just him piling more dirt on his head in my opinion.

His problem with trying to characterize my argument was he was still attempting to debate content under the terms and rules that he had specified, whereas I was ignoring content and arguing the very fact that he was arrogant enough to think he could set terms and make rules.

This is why he tried to call me out on moral standards when it had absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. He tried to take the initiative, and failed. Utterly.

I appreciate your attempt to back peddal from the genocidal conservative position.

But, in fact, "G" "914" and other wizbangers were advocating, not just destroying Mecca, but also Medina and other Muslim holy lands, "silencing Mohammad Permanently" (G added "you figure it out") and I think James C, advocated the uses of nukes.

So, 1) You react zealously when it's done to you.
2) But not so zealously when it's done to others. Even when advocating genocide.

Did you miss my post this morning?...I guess so...here it is again:

"You want to know why I so "PASSIONATELY" responded to you and not to G? Because G is entitled to his opinion regardless of whether I agree with it, whereas you tried to make me RESPONSIBLE for his opinion if I didn't answer to YOU."

and

Just saying with a healthy dose of pretension that you condemn someone doesn't magically make you a good person contrary to liberal belief.

and also the post after that where I explained the reasoning behing my position...you never responded.

In case you haven't caught on, I'm deliberately not responding to the conservatives in question, or your silly little points for the VERY REASON THAT YOU'RE ASKING, IN FACT, BAITING ME TO.

Why?

Because you're arrogant to think I need to [or else].

You bolding the last part of you post doesn't change what I said, you're grossly generalizing.

I merely contend that your unwillingness to respond (to calls for genocide against Muslims) is indicative of a hypocritical and inherently evil position. And it helps deepen my understanding of conservatives.

I think it's important, however to point out that failing to say one thing doesn't mean you mean another.

That's part of what I was trying to say earlier. You can't start saying people stand for something that they don't because they haven't answered your questions. Perhaps if we were all sitting in a big conference room that line of reasoning would work, but on a blog if you don't even know if what your asking is being read, there's an unhealthy amount of assumption going into your decision making.

Now that the dust has settled. Heralder, you are absolutely right about my presumptuous accusations. And I do apologize for my approach.

I only felt that, given the stakes, it was important to call people out, and confront many of the posters into acknowledging the huge implications of what they were so casually advocating.

In truth, I know this group I pointed out is only a small fringe of conservatives. But I think in self-reinforcing communities, like political blogs left and right, fringe malevolence can fester and grow if not confronted.

Yes... the islamo maggots and their drone bitches seek hegemony over you... Let us not forget about the maggots here in the USA who have attempted to use this as leverage to promote their deluded version of reality.

The solution?

Complete political separation from all the religious powers of Earth. How can we have freedom when the resources of Earth are mostly in the hands of savage plunderers? To live in a community with such individuals and work in a hiearcical organization run by such individuals is an insult to humanity... And any guard that would allow me to be in such jurisdiction needs to be out my fukkin life in that capacity like yesterday... To handle my metaphysical affairs you gotta have courage... and making me live somewhere where these maggots control... is cowardly...